FINAL COUNTDOWN FOR USA ELECTION 2008

Do you think United Nations election supervisors should be called in Foxy? Isn't voting fraud in member countries what they are for?

Based in part on Hollander, Surrick concludes, "The alleged harm to voters stemming from a presidential candidate's failure to satisfy the eligibility requirements of the Natural Born Citizen Clause is not concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury."

(Obama) repeatedly alleges that the Bush Tax Cuts reduced the income taxes for the wealthy and not the middle class. That is false.

Do you even bother aiming for objectivity anymore, Fox? Are you looking forward to spending the next 8 years hunkered in a defensive stance and ranting about conspiracies?

Oh, you guys can repeat the accolades and accept what Obama says without question and you are objective, but if I point out what I see as the reality, then I am not objective. Yes, I know how that works.

Are you prepared to say that ACORN has not aggreviously violated the law in gathering voter registrations? Are you prepared to say that all the fraudulent registrations have been identified and removed from the system? Are you saying that they will be? Are you saying that in elections as close as we've seen over the last two elections that such fraudulent registrations could not possibly make a difference? Are you saying you don't care about that as long as your guy wins? Are you saying you would take the same view if the situation favored the Republican?

Are you saying that it doesn't matter if Obama has questions of a stolen election hanging over his head, especially if there is no way to verify that?

(At least even the leftish media, after exhaustive examination of all those hanging chads in Florida, eventually admitted that there was no question that President Bush won in 2000. That hasn't stopped the claims of a stolen election from your side all these years later though has it.)

As much as I do not want Obama for President, even I don't want that for him if he is elected. Do you?

Are you saying that you approve of the judge stating, as part of the rationale for his opinion, that there is little harm done if Obama should turn out to be ineligible to be President? And do you also want THAT hanging over his head for the next four years? I don't.

Are you saying that you approve of the Obama campaign and the surrogate media digging into a private citizen's private life and attempting to destroy him because he asked Obama an embarrassing question? You think that's okay?

Are you saying that a television station should be frozen out of the process because an anchor asked Joe Biden an embarrassing question? You approve of that?

Are you saying that Ican or I or anybody else shouldn't be questioning Obama's campaign rhetoric and pointing out the errors and/or implausibility of that, especially when his worshipers seem to have no interest in any of that at this point. He looks good, he talks good, and he isn't a Republican so believe whatever he tells you? That's the way it should be?

And I'm the one not being objective here?

Have a look at your own posts and see the pattern of repeatedly trotting out fringe theories one after the other, each one shot down by the facts (not by our bias) yet not slowing your momentum at all.

Are you saying that a handful of obviously fraudulent registrations can turn the election? Do you seriously believe that allowing Mickey Mouse to vote is as great a risk as unsecured electronic voting systems controlled by a single party? If you wanted to throw an election, would you try to orchestrate an army of several hundred thousand fake voters, or would you just find one computer expert? You have the facts on the ACORN nonsense but you refuse to accept them.

Bush had those questions, twice. Did it matter to you? It matters if the questions are legitimate. I think you like the questions more than you like the answers. You are talking out of both sides of your face. With one you sow doubts, with the other you bemoan that there should be doubts.

Quote:

Err, I think the final say on that was that Gore won Florida, but everyone agrees now that it doesn't matter.

No, the verdict even by the leftwing media was that Bush won Florida. Had he not, then Gore won the election. That is a rather important thing don't you think? Or is that a 'fringe area'?

Quote:

And your insistence on calling it "my side" is yet more evidence of your us vs. them mentality. I'm not on your side, so I must be on their side. I voted for Harry Brown in 2000 and insisted to my friends that it really didn't matter whether Gore or Bush won because they were so much alike. The difference is that I can admit now how wrong my thinking was then.

By your side, I mean those who think any question or investigation re Barack Obama is off limits or involves a 'fringe area'. You are right that it made a huge difference whether Gore or Bush won in 2000 though. It would have been far far worse if Gore had won.

Quote:

No, I don't want that. And if you don't want that then why do you persist on advancing fringe nonsense like the birth certificate theory even while admitting that you don't believe it? That's called sowing doubts, and it's what you've done more of than anything else. If you don't believe it, and you are a reasonable and rational person, then why would you perpetuate it and risk that someone else would believe what you yourself don't find credible?

I didn't bring it up dear. The issue was brought up by others. And there would have been no doubt in my mind if Barack Obama had been forthcoming in putting the matter to rest in a manner in which there was no question. Have a judge rule on the authenticity of the birth certificate. Give it to McCain supporters for examination. The way he has gone about it has raised the doubts, not the initial question. That nobody but Obama-friendly sources have been given opportunity to examine the document is what raises the doubts. Had he, by his own behavior, not provided the appearance that there may be a problem, there would be no problem. And I would be defending him as staunchly as you in that matter.

Quote:

I didn't read the whole decision and I am not a lawyer and I hazard a guess that the same goes for you. But did you notice that his conclusion was based on the decision made in the McCain case? What's your opinion on that one?

John McCain gave no appearance of trying to avoid close scrutiny of his eligibility to be President. And therein is the difference. I notice you sidestepped what the judge actually said about Obama's eligibility not being an issue of 'harm' however. Nice dodge.

Quote:

Do you have evidence that the Obama campaign did this? And what does this have to do with anything?

I have no evidence that the Obama campaign has done anything to dissuade it or call it off. What does it have to do with anything? That the Democrats would absolutely attempt to destroy a citizen that dared ask Obama a question that has resonated with the American people doesn't have anything to do with anything? And he apparently condones it since he sure as hell hasn't spoken out against it? Oh yeah, another fringe area. I know.

Quote:

Quote:

Are you saying that a television station should be frozen out of the process because an anchor asked Joe Biden an embarrassing question? You approve of that?

You are kidding right? It's ok for Sarah Palin and John McCain but not ok for Biden? (Disclaimer: I don't actually know what you're talking about re: Biden, but you do know that several people have been frozen out of the McCain and Palin entourages, right? One of them the author of Primary Colors -- not exactly a left-wing plant. ) This is one of your double standards.

Double standard? I can assure you Obama has nobody traveling with him who has not drunk the kool-ade and I have never complained about that in any way, nor do I think that improper.

There is a huge difference in disinviting non supporters from one's campaign entourage and publicly announcing that a television station is off limits to the campaign and will be off limits because an anchor asked Joe Biden an embarassing question.

Story here: http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-124444

Quote:

Quote:

Are you saying that Ican or I or anybody else shouldn't be questioning Obama's campaign rhetoric and pointing out the errors and/or implausibility of that, especially when his worshipers seem to have no interest in any of that at this point. He looks good, he talks good, and he isn't a Republican so believe whatever he tells you? That's the way it should be?

And I'm the one not being objective here?

What in heaven's name are you talking about? I'm saying that your insistence on calling Obama supporters "worshippers" and "followers" and your consistent and persistent denial of facts and your willingness to forward fringe theories that you admittedly don't even believe yourself makes you a partisan and intellectually lazy hack. Further, your refusal to accept facts from organizations with outstanding reputations, like factcheck.org and the Tax Policy Center, indeed going so far as to label them biased and liberal with no supporting facts, while accepting editorials and opinion pieces by incredibly partisan hacks as the gospel truth belies your blindness.

When people refuse to accept hard questions, denounce and accuse those who ask them, and heap a non questioning, all accepting, adoring adulations on a political candidate, I call them worshipers. That does not make me non objective. That makes me one who calls it as I see it.

Quote:

You are a conservative and it only stands to reason that you would disagree with Obama's and the Democratic platform. But you are not forwarding reasoned arguments here. You are just another water carrier for the fringe right wing, whether you know it or not. Your bias is obvious but your double standards are gobsmacking. I think you are not stupid, and perhaps you have some serious arguments and interesting ideas but dear god I haven't seen any in quite some time. I can't wait until this election is over.

See previous comment. I am an unashamed conservative yes. But I won't accept the mantra that any questions I have raised are the least bit fringe and I do believe you would not consider them so if they were being directed to McCain instead of Obama.

Quote:

And while I'm at it, let me save you the trouble of your predictable response. "You will not respond to those who cannot argue the point without being insulting, etc...." I am clearly tired of arguing facts and points with you because you don't accept facts as evidence. There is no way that we can have a rational conversation, which is good, because I really don't have time for this bullshit anymore.

Fine. Then I won't need to look forward to your detailed analysis of everything I post along with your assessment that I am not objective, I deal in fringe issues, my point of view is unsupportable, and I won't accept only Obama-friendly sources for verification as I am apparently supposed to do?

That's cool. Do have a good day.

Perhaps you would like to list and explain what constitutes fringe areas. Obama's birth certificate? Not important whether he is eligible to be president? Okay.

Voter registration fraud? Not an issue. Okay.

Whether Obama has any chance to keep any of the promises he is making to those he wants to vote for him? Not fair to bring that up?

That Obama has no problem with shutting down conservative voices or trashing public citizens or freezing out a television station that displeases him? We shouldn't be concerned about that? Okay.

What then is fair to talk about? His haircut? His wardrobe? His nice smile? What?

When people refuse to accept hard questions, denounce and accuse those who ask them, and heap a non questioning, all accepting, adoring adulations on a political candidate, I call them worshipers. That does not make me non objective. That makes me one who calls it as I see it.